The libertarian disconnect!!

You don't seem to know how property works. It's not about "working for it," but homesteading it. I imagine legal custom would recognize the air in your house and surrounding it as homesteaded.

If that was ever going to happen, it'd be now. The government (>1% of the population) effectively owns all the air. Your hypothetical is realized, and yet we're not fighting to the death, gladiator style...

 

I'm not sure how you can say you didn't work for the air that flows above your yard, as it is your yard that delineates which air that is. The conclusion you came to from what I see as a fallacy doesn't make sense either. There's nothing simple about creating an self-sufficient vacuum above one's home. If you can show me the science that can do that then you may have a case. Either way - that could count as pollution (your activity has caused me to suffer harm) and you would be covered by tort.

Your second example on land ownership. All of the land that is claimable is already owned today. Exactly why would land trade stop? Again you operate under the assumption that you can flash freeze a particular part of an economy - this simply is not possible. You are also making the somewhat silly statement that there's no price at which the land owner would sell nor under any circumstance.

 

"Everyone" can't own anything because "everyone" doesn't exist. Only individuals exist.

 

I was talking about land in that case, but the government does not own all air nor land, otherwise you wouldn't be able to live in a privately owned apartment or house, and you wouldn't be able to breathe without paying for it.

If a private entity privately owned all land, they could of course charge everyone anything they wanted just to set foot on it. They could even just not charge them anything for it, and instead give them two options: 1. get off their property (which of course would be impossible), or 2. fight with members of their close family to death in gladiator arenas.

They'd have exactly one option.

Tell me that wouldn't by tyranny.

 

I don't really agree completely with the homestead rule as the determinant of property - even land.

Take this for example - homesteading operates under the idea that you own what you use. But that ignores the reality of idle capital. Sometimes the most efficient use of capital is no use at all. I don't think your legitimacy over owning property should be forfeit just because its not 100% in use.

How exactly does investment work with homesteading as investments can only come from the accumulation of idle capital?

 

It's not even about everyone simultaneously owning something. It's about what private entities should not do-own 100% of something which is necessary for society to function and then gouge everyone for it.

This is an example of a utilitarian ideology, but then, don't mistake me for being completely a utilitarian; I'm not. I also believe in private property rights, in some situations.

 

I don't care if you think it's absolutely impossible or not. What matters is that if it happened, it would have to be stopped.

That applies whether said monopoly were due to private entities or a government(s). In fact, either way, it'd be private entities because as far as I know, governments are really private entities. They simply are (often) forceful private entities. Organized mafias.

 

It is true that under the current Keynesian economic philosophy that it wouldn't happen but Libertarians reject Keynesianism and instead advocate Laisse Faire capitalism where the role of government is to provide regulations solely to ensure the Rights of the People.

The government should not be "granting privilege" and under Laisse Faire capitalism because it is not involved in economic interventionism. Elimination of the Federal Reserve and eliminating the creation of fiat currency that transfers the labor of the worker to financial institution and the wealthy while allowing free markets (with necessary regulations to ensure the protection of the Rights of the People) would eliminate the "priviledges" that are currently being given to the wealthy today.

Can it work under Keynesian caplitalism? No, it can't because Keynesian economics is based upon granting priviledges to the wealthy and to corporations.

It can work under Laisse Faire caplitalism and that is what Libertarians propose.

 

Something is homesteaded when you mix your labor with it or acquire it via transaction. I don't see this as conflicting with idle capital.

Anyway, it's the general principle that's been empirically true over time. Legal custom can account for he few oddities that arise.

And concerning the air thing, this has been beat to death. I think we've laid out pretty clearly why your concerns are a bit off base, Indrid.

 

It's difficult to really know what all would happen if we somehow switched to a trade and barter system. Unfortunately it'd be very much harder to trade things as quickly, however.

 

Not really - even in your hypothetical case the land owner would have to have something of value in order to trade with. You're also assuming the land owner doesn't just get killed. How is this guy going to protect his property from the aggression of others? There is value to him to hire protectors. How many protectors would be required to defend his property? How will they defend it? Do they need weapons? Someone is going to have to make them. How will the land owner convince those people to make and SELL the weapons to his workers rather than use them against him?

How is the single man going to live? He has no shelter, no food, nothing. Will he want to marry and have kids? Will he divide his land between them? How about healthcare, does he want a doctor? Who is going to train and provide equipment to this doctor?

What about repairs? can he repair anything? How would he repair his tools? Who built the tools?

As you can see this example falls apart pretty quickly. Eventually this land owner is going to have to sell some land.

 

I think the feasibility is an important thing to remember though. Anyways I completely agree with you on the bold part.

 

So homesteading doesn't mean going on to an idle field that has been claimed already and is idle for a reason?

Do you differentiate between idle and abandoned?

 

Hopefully they wouldn't be able to.

If these 10% of the world's population could defend 100% of the land that they privately owned, they could operate entirely within their own population independently. They probably wouldn't need the other 90%.

This would of course be tyranny in my eyes, however. That's the problem.

 

I fail to see either relevance or foundation for such an assumption. We fundamentally have a barter system today but it is corrupted by fiat currency. Money is and has always been a commodity whereas currency is not. Techincally under the law Federal Reserve notes are still redeemable it gold and silver coins being produced by the US Mint. Both are legal tender and many don't understand what legal tender is. According to the Supreme Court decision in Julliard v Greenman currency is only Constitutional if it is a promissory note redeemable in "money" which has always been gold and silver coins produced by the US Mint. The elimination of Federal Reserve (promissory) notes (currency) does not remove "legal tender" from the economy but it would make "lawful money" (US Mint produced gold and silver coins) as the sole legal tender for use in the United States.

Many make the mistake that prices rise with inflation and that isn't exactly true. Federal Reserve notes, like any promissory note, are traded on the open market at a discount related to what they promise. Home mortgages, for example, are a promissory note and when sold between banks they are discounted usually by about 5%. Credit card debt, which is also represented by a promissory note, are also traded on the market generally when someone defaults on payment. These are discounted by 50% or more on the free market. Federal Reserve notes are also traded on the free market and, because of the extreme difficulty in obtaining the gold and silver coins they promise, are discounted by over 97%. It isn't that prices are going up but instead that the value of Federal Reserve notes is being discounted.

Hostorically the United States has always issued promissory notes going back to the American Revolution. What is different since the 1930's is that the US government is not redeeming those promissory notes as it is required to do under the law. All prior promissory notes were redeemable at a future point in time and eventually if the People wanted to redeem them they could. We are faced with a problem today that the amount of US promissory notes in circulation exceed the entire world's supply of both gold and silver many times over.

People take about the US "national debt" but fail to acknowledge that the "national debt" also includes all of the Federal Reserve (promissory) notes in circulation.

 

Is that why I have to bring in the pigs and sheep wool that I've cultivated to the doctor's office or grocery store?

Am I somehow being "too literal" with my example of an interaction in a trade and barter system?

Why would it have to be gold and silver? Why couldn't we just trade bars of...chocolate, for a beer at a small bar? Why couldn't we trade anything for anything?

If we can in fact trade anything for anything, then "it would make 'lawful money' (US Mint produced gold and silver coins) as the sole legal tender for use in the United States" would be untrue.

I cut out a HELL of a lot of stuff that isn't worth replying to, but I just HAD to LAUGH MY (*)(*)(*)(*)ING ASS OFF at this (*)(*)(*)(*).

Seriously, people in freaking India and China, who now have the jobs that use to be available to people here in the U.S., are buying more costly things that require more costly resources to make due to having higher income. Their populations are also becoming even greater.

The real problem is overpopulation which drains Earth's scarce resources. I'm sure you, like every other wishy washy wannabe-politically correct poster, will be all like "no, overpopulation isn't a problem. We can't make policies that restrict population growth!!!!" but that's purposely ignoring this huge elephant in the room.

It's a real simple problem that was foreseen by Malthus. He's laughing his (*)(*)(*)(*)ing ass off at us now in his grave.

 

lol!! You just made that up. And it's so far from true it's giving me a laughing attack. The purpose of a free market IS to allocate SCARCE resources. Oof.

 

And the purpose of certain (superficially utilitarian) policies is to make it so that scarce resources aren't so scarce.

Also, the real purpose of a free market is to protect private property.

 

Currently only gold, silver (and recently added platinum) coins produced by the US Mint are both lawful money and legal tender in the United States under Title 31. Currency (promissory notes issued by the US government) which includes Federal Reserve notes is also legal tender under Title 31 but it is not lawful money. Instead Federal Reserve note, which are legal tender currency promises redemption in lawful money under Title 12.

Of note a Canadian Gold Maple Leaf coin is "lawful" money but it is not legal tender in the United States. They can be used as money but their acceptance is not mandated under US law. It is basically up to the individual as to whether they will or will not accept a Canadian Gold Maple Leaf in exchange for goods and services.

Since 1977 the "Gold Clause" is once again active in the United States. The stipulation can be included in the exchange of goods and services that they can only be paid for in gold which would limit acceptance of "legal tender" to only American Gold Eagles. Many are unaware of this fact.

So why not something other than gold or silver coins? Certianly any commodity can be used as legal tender money. There are numerous reasons for selecting gold and silver over something like chocolate candy bars.

The amount of gold and silver in the market is relatively stable. The market could be flooded with candy bars making the free market exchange rate vary dramatically. Gold and silver are highly desirable as a commodity because of the number of commercial applications for each. Gold, for example, is the more versatile of all metals when it comes to possible usages in industry.

Gold and silver also have a high trade value in the free market relative to other commodities. With a single ounce of gold a person can exchange it for a lot of other commodities. One gold ounce might be equal to ten thousand pieces of chocolate. Try taking ten thousand pieces of chocolate to Best Buy to purchase a large flat screen TV for example.

What we've found historically is that gold and silver simply meet the requirements for money better than any other commodity and that is why it has historically been used as money.

 

Unfortunately you can't legislate away scarcity. Free market innovation an productivity is the only way to lessen scarcity.

Protecting private property is not the purpose of free markets, it is just a requirement for them.

 

Well, not that this should be mandatory (that's not what I'm saying at all), but if you have two people driving two different cars, vs. two people sharing one car, which is more efficient?

The more people jointly own property, the more efficient, assuming that people can jointly own the property at hand. Free markets don't encourage that. They encourage individual greed.

Just mentioning.

That does make sense. But, most people I've encountered support free markets mainly because of the fact that private property would exist.

 

It depends upon where each of them are going and possible time constraints related to their travel.

 

Yes, and this distinction has been made clear historically under common law systems as well. There was a really good discussion on this in another forum; I'll try to look it up for you.

 

What if they both travel to the same place? This is the reason why bus routes are..bus routes. If instead they made a greater number of individual vehicles to transport people, the costs would become a lot higher for the companies due to having to buy more metal and plastic etc. in the vehicles and much more fuel for them..even if each individual vehicle would be smaller.

 

I see. But in that case, wouldn't things such as gold and silver be more efficiently used in industrial applications, rather than people trading it for groceries?

What if someone honestly lost a gold nugget that was worth..his ass?